rodshaw
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi ParamjeetI'm glad to see you've started asking us questions. Keep them coming – and in case you've missed it, here's a link to our FAQ page, which may answer some of them (and, hopefully, lead to more).http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/faq
ParamjeetYou're not telling us much about what you think of the socialist point of view as set out on this website.Maybe you should take a bit of time out to study what we're saying and then ask questions. Simply making your own lengthy assertions, saying thanks for the comments, then opening another thread and doing the same again doesn't give me any idea how far you've got in understanding the case for real socialism: a classless, moneyless, leaderless, worldwide society based on common ownership of the world's resources.It's got nothing to do with greedy people, or with 'good' or 'bad' people in government. We don't need governments.What do you think about that?
For 'socialism' read 'state capitalism' and it could be true for all we know. It isn't anti-socialist in our terms, and I'm sure we wouldn't want to be defending the regimes the article calls socialist. Nevertheless, we're bound to get tarred by the same brush.
Vin Maratty wrote:Children Exposed To Religion Have Difficulty Distinguishing Fact From Fiction, Study Finds http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/children-religion-fact-fiction_n_5607009.html At least most of them turn into adults who can distinguish fact from fiction. With the exception of their religious beliefs, of course. Amazing how many people can suspend their disbelief on a Sunday.If you look at the Gallup data though, at least the percentage of non-believers in the US is gradually growing, though it's only at 15%.
The western countries who voted for the allocation of the 2018 football world cup to Russia will probably be keeping very quiet about it for a while. By then, I suspect it will all be business as usual.
Vin Maratty wrote:The party would have a lot more appeal if it spent more time attacking the actions of Tories and LibDems.And how exactly does attacking any party for its alleged paedophile activities further the cause of socialism?
As a movement we have nothing to gain by attacking child abusers and sleaze per se. The line we should take is that a sick society breeds sick people, and so on.Even if everybody in and associated with the government and all political parties were squeaky clean, were that possible, it wouldn't change our position one jot.
The contemporary state of affairs and overall scenario you refer to are a direct result of class monopoly. Either you are part of the rich elite who own and control, or you are part of the vast majority who don't. This is the reality that pervades just about all aspects of our everyday lives. The "class struggle" encompasses the conflicts which arise through this basic division – to put it crudely, the haves versus the have-nots.The solution is not to chip away piecemeal at the inequalities this class division engenders, and then move on the next "good cause", in the belief that this is practical socialism. At best, all such activity can do is to slow the encroachments of capitalism onto our living standards. It generally fails miserably. As do attempts to foster love, peace and other things which matter without seeing the broader picture.Socialism should certainly not be limited to thoretical discussion. But because the number of real socialists in the world is at present tiny, the practical things to be doing all concern education and propaganda with the aim of spreading socialist ideas.
Looks as if the poor bloke in the photo you posted could do with a few of the material comforts of life you seem to be decrying.I think you are confusing materialism with commercialism, the world of the market and the brand, where side by side with the message "look at all these nice goodies" is the message "can't pay, can't have".We don't need a system to curb materialism. We need to abolish the class division which allows a small minority to own and control the world's wealth to the exclusion of the majority. The world's resources need to be held in common. Then there will be no rich, no poor and nobody worshipping the brand.
I don't see how any materialist can disagree that ideas, just like emotions, are part of the material world. That surely is for religionists. Ideas arise from the interaction of our brain cells in unison with the rest of our body and with the outside world. Leastways there is no evidence to the contrary. How on earth else do we get them? I'm not sure Marx or Engels said anything different. But no doubt somebody can throw lots of quotes at me.Whether we're satisfied with pies or crave a bit of posh cordon bleu, we still need a brain, and something physical going on in it, in the form of an idea or two, to perceive our hunger. Or the beauty of a sausage.So calm it down, boys.
To me, "World In Common" sums us up best. Or "The World for the Workers", which we use already. They also beg a lot of questions of course – but we're good at answering those, when anybody bothers to ask.We may get a certain way by pushing well-chosen epithets or slogans (not that we have so far) but the real answer is education, and unfortunately that's a slog. There are at least now a lot of groups and individuals groping in the right direction. One day it will build up to a "sea-change" in ideas and that's what we need to tap into.Having said that, it's catchphrases and slogans that stick in people's minds, and there's something to be said for simply ramming assertions into people's brains in an attempt to dislodge what's already there. At least now we have a bit of dosh. To suggest a brutalist approach, we could always try splashing out on a capitalist-style ad campaign to get our Big Words out there – in newspapers or on large hoardings or electronic screens like, say, the one in Manchester Piccadilly Gardens – but I suspect we don't have anywhere near enough money for that kind of thing, even if we could get away with it. And I'm sure it's been suggested several times before.I also like the idea of more short, well-produced Youtube videos. But they should pack a punch; we should consider using actors – there must be plenty of out-of-work thespians whose fee demands we could meet. They might even spread the word for us.
"World-Community-Wealth" sounds like the kind of thing an advertising agency might dream up for a major bank.It's all a question of definition. People outside the party would understand many different things by the word socialism, depending on who you ask. Our definition is now a minority one but it's still the best label there is for what we stand for and we should continue to push it.We have a whole baggage of terms we have a unique meaning for. It would be a bit tricky to ditch them all. “Working class” immediately comes to mind. How many people outside the WSM think there's no middle class? “Class struggle” – sounds pretty pompous. “Wage slave” – does that really include managers on £50k a year?Some terms, which have variously been suggested from time to time as substitutions for the party name, are equally dubious.“Free Access” – freedom for immigrants to enter the country? No government secrets? No charge for using an ATM? “World Without Money” – everyone to share poverty, or maybe a comment on the state of the majority? And so on.
